Over-subscription Planning with Numeric Goals J. Benton Computer Sci. & Eng. Dept. Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Minh Do Palo Alto Research Center.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An LP-Based Heuristic for Optimal Planning Menkes van den Briel Department of Industrial Engineering Arizona State University
Advertisements

Questions Addressed by Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis
Top 5 Worst Times For A Conference Talk 1.Last Day 2.Last Session of Last Day 3.Last Talk of Last Session of Last Day 4.Last Talk of Last Session of Last.
Generating Plans in Concurrent, Probabilistic, Oversubscribed Domains Li Li and Nilufer Onder Department of Computer Science Michigan Technological University.
Finding Search Heuristics Henry Kautz. if State[node] is not in closed OR g[node] < g[LookUp(State[node],closed)] then A* Graph Search for Any Admissible.
Parallel Symbolic Execution for Structural Test Generation Matt Staats Corina Pasareanu ISSTA 2010.
Aggregate Planning.
Solutions for Scheduling Assays. Why do we use laboratory automation? Improve quality control (QC) Free resources Reduce sa fety risks Automatic data.
Effective Approaches for Partial Satisfaction (Over-subscription) Planning Romeo Sanchez * Menkes van den Briel ** Subbarao Kambhampati * * Department.
Part 3 Probabilistic Decision Models
Sensitivity Analysis In deterministic analysis, single fixed values (typically, mean values) of representative samples or strength parameters or slope.
Comp Spring 2003 Delay Jitter Ketan Mayer-Patel.
Concurrent Markov Decision Processes Mausam, Daniel S. Weld University of Washington Seattle.
A Heuristic Bidding Strategy for Multiple Heterogeneous Auctions Patricia Anthony & Nicholas R. Jennings Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science University.
AQM for Congestion Control1 A Study of Active Queue Management for Congestion Control Victor Firoiu Marty Borden.
TADA Transition Aligned Domain Analysis T J. Benton and Kartik Talamadupula and Subbarao Kambhampati.
Finding Admissible Bounds for Over- subscribed Planning Problems J. Benton Menkes van den BrielSubbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University.
State Agnostic Planning Graphs William Cushing Daniel Bryce Arizona State University {william.cushing, Special thanks to: Subbarao Kambhampati,
1. 2 Problem Description & Assumption Metric model in Sapa planner:  f(p) = w * time(p) + (1-w) * cost(p).  Assuming that the trade-off value w is given.
Planning Graph-based Heuristics for Cost-sensitive Temporal Planning Minh B. Do & Subbarao Kambhampati CSE Department, Arizona State University
A Hybrid Linear Programming and Relaxed Plan Heuristic for Partial Satisfaction Planning Problems J. Benton Menkes van den BrielSubbarao Kambhampati Arizona.
Expressive and Efficient Frameworks for Partial Satisfaction Planning Subbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University (Proposal submitted for consideration.
Minh Do - PARC Planning with Goal Utility Dependencies J. Benton Department of Computer Science Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Subbarao.
Penn ESE535 Spring DeHon 1 ESE535: Electronic Design Automation Day 5: February 2, 2009 Architecture Synthesis (Provisioning, Allocation)
1 Linear Programming With Sensitivity Analysis Here we look at some graphs to learn some ideas.
1 Doing Statistics for Business Doing Statistics for Business Data, Inference, and Decision Making Marilyn K. Pelosi Theresa M. Sandifer Chapter 7 Sampling.
Arizona State University DMML Kernel Methods – Gaussian Processes Presented by Shankar Bhargav.
A Tool for Partitioning and Pipelined Scheduling of Hardware-Software Systems Karam S Chatha and Ranga Vemuri Department of ECECS University of Cincinnati.
SAPA: A Domain-independent Heuristic Temporal Planner Minh B. Do & Subbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University.
Productivity One of the most important responsibilities of an operations manager is to achieve productive use of organization’s resources. Productivity.
Grocery Measure: LEDs for Reach-In Display Cases Regional Technical Forum July 21 st, 2015 Mohit Singh-Chhabra.
Non-Linear Simultaneous Equations
CONTROL of NONLINEAR SYSTEMS with LIMITED INFORMATION Daniel Liberzon Coordinated Science Laboratory and Dept. of Electrical & Computer Eng., Univ. of.
The Firm: Cost and Output Determination
Financial and Managerial Accounting Wild, Shaw, and Chiappetta Fifth Edition Wild, Shaw, and Chiappetta Fifth Edition McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013.
by B. Zadrozny and C. Elkan
June 21, 2007 Minimum Interference Channel Assignment in Multi-Radio Wireless Mesh Networks Anand Prabhu Subramanian, Himanshu Gupta.
Types of IP Models All-integer linear programs Mixed integer linear programs (MILP) Binary integer linear programs, mixed or all integer: some or all of.
ANTs PI Meeting, Nov. 29, 2000W. Zhang, Washington University1 Flexible Methods for Multi-agent distributed resource Allocation by Exploiting Phase Transitions.
2.3 Introduction to Functions
Computer Networks with Internet Technology William Stallings
Resource Mapping and Scheduling for Heterogeneous Network Processor Systems Liang Yang, Tushar Gohad, Pavel Ghosh, Devesh Sinha, Arunabha Sen and Andrea.
Article: In the News at the Local Multiplex You own a movie theater. It’s a nice size. You are doing well and ready to expand. What is the advantage of.
Communication Delays in Wide Area Measurement Systems (WAMS) Biju Naduvathuparambil, Matthew C. Valenti, and Ali Feliachi Lane Department of Comp. Sci.
Online Social Networks and Media
OPERATING SYSTEMS CS 3530 Summer 2014 Systems and Models Chapter 03.
DTC Quantitative Methods Summary of some SPSS commands Weeks 1 & 2, January 2012.
1 BA 555 Practical Business Analysis Linear Programming (LP) Sensitivity Analysis Simulation Agenda.
Ames Research Center Incremental Contingency Planning Richard Dearden, Nicolas Meuleau, Sailesh Ramakrishnan, David E. Smith, Rich Washington window [10,14:30]
Ames Research Center Planning with Uncertainty in Continuous Domains Richard Dearden No fixed abode Joint work with: Zhengzhu Feng U. Mass Amherst Nicolas.
CAPP: Change-Aware Preemption Prioritization Vilas Jagannath, Qingzhou Luo, Darko Marinov Sep 6 th 2011.
Business Production Decisions Productivity and Costs decisions Intro: You make production decisions everyday: Homework Input-3 hours Output—good grade.
Kerimcan OzcanMNGT 379 Operations Research1 Linear Programming Chapter 2.
Adeyl Khan, Faculty, BBA, NSU 1 Introduction to Linear Programming  A Linear Programming model seeks to maximize or minimize a linear function, subject.
Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Education (Asia). All rights reserved. 13 Aggregate Planning.
3.5 Notes analytical technique for evaluating limits of rational functions as x approaches infinity.
Marketing Management Dawn Iacobucci © 2010 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning.
BITS Pilani Pilani Campus Data Structure and Algorithms Design Dr. Maheswari Karthikeyan Lecture1.
Algorithm Analysis Lakshmish Ramaswamy. What Constitutes Good Software? Code correctness Good design Code reusability OO design can help us in achieving.
Roman Barták (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic) ACAT 2010.
Heuristic Search Planners. 2 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE Planning as heuristic search Use standard search techniques, e.g. A*, best-first, hill-climbing.
Aggregate Planning. Session Break Up Aggregate Planning Master Production Schedule.
Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis Chapter 2. CVP analysis is used to answer questions such as:  How much must I sell to earn my desired income?  How will.
1 2 Linear Programming Chapter 3 3 Chapter Objectives –Requirements for a linear programming model. –Graphical representation of linear models. –Linear.
The Production Process: The Behavior of Profit-Maximizing Firms
Minh Do, Terry Zimmerman, and Subbarao Kambhampati
5 points piece Homework Check
Splash Screen.
How do you know when one more is too much?
Presentation transcript:

Over-subscription Planning with Numeric Goals J. Benton Computer Sci. & Eng. Dept. Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Minh Do Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) Palo Alto, CA Subbarao Kambhampati Computer Sci. & Eng. Dept. Arizona State University Tempe, AZ

Over-subscription Planning  Goals optional & have utility  Actions have cost  Maximize utility-cost  “Benefit” cost = 200 cost = 500 cost = 300 Util = 500 Util = 200 B C A Initial: At A Goals: B & C [“The Mystery Talk”, Smith 2003] Rovers Example 300

Motivation  Numeric goals also have utility  More soil gives better instrument reading  More packages give more profit  Cost for achieving varying values differs  More soil requires more weight  More packages require more deliveries

Objective  Want more/less G = soil-sample ∈ [2,4] U(G) = (* (soil-sample) 2)  Challenge – A measurable level of numeric goal achievement: degree of satisfaction Collect Cost=1 Collect Cost=2 1 gram cost=3 soil collected util=2*2=4 Collect Cost=3 1 gram action cost cost=6 util=3*2=6 Benefit=4- 3=1 Benefit=6-6=0 Satisfy numeric goals at different values to give varying utility BenefitBenefit v a l u e best benefit

Modeling Numeric Goal Over-subscription  Achieve with a given utility  Specify a goal range U(G) = (* (soil-sample) 2) G = soil-sample ∈ [2,4] Sample UtilityUtility 1. Fixed utility for satisfying level 2. Linear 3. Hard bounds Infinity on range OK 4. Model as a separate goal

Sapa Mps Architecture Over-subscribed Planning Planning Problem Input Initial State Select state with best f-value Queue of Time-Stamped States Better benefit plan? Yes Output Plan Generate States by Applying Actions Build RTPG Propagate Cost Find Utility No Anytime A* Search Based on Sapa PS

Challenge – Heuristic Support  Heuristic needs to…  Estimate cost of achieving variable values  Find the utility of the values  Extend current state-of-the-art techniques  Planning graph structure  Reachability estimation  Cost propagation

Challenge – Find Goal Achievement Cost  Propagate reachable values with cost Sample_Soil Communicate Move(Waypoint1) Sample_Soil cost( ): Cost of achieving each value bound v 1 : [0,0] [0,1] [0,2] A range of possible values

Cost Propagation on Variable Bounds  Bound cost dependent upon  action cost  previous bound cost - current bound cost adds to the next  Cost of all bounds in expressions Sample_Soil Cost(v 1 =2) Sample_Soil C(Sample_Soil)+Cost(v 1 =1) v 1 : [0,0] [0,1] [0,2] Sample_Soil Cost(v 1 =6) Sample_Soil C(Sample_Soil)+Cost(v 2 =3)+Cost(v 1 =3) v 1 : [0,0] [0,3] [0,6] v 2 : [0,3] Sample_Soil Effect: v 1 +=1 Sample_Soil Effect: v 1 +=v 2

Extracting Relaxed Plan with Numeric Info  Start with best benefit bounds  Relaxed plan includes  Actions  Supporting bounds BenefitBenefit v a l u e best benefit

Sample_Soil 1 (Sa1) Dur = 1 Cost: 1 (at end) V 1 += 1 Sample_Soil 2 (Sa2) Dur = 1.25 Cost: 2 (at end) V 1 += 2 Communicate (Com) Dur = 1.5 Cost: 3 (at start) V 1 ≥ 1 Sa1 t C:1 Sa1 C:1 Sa1 C:1 Sa2 C:2 Sa2 C:2 Sa2 C:2 Com C:4 Com C:4 4 Goal: v2 ∈ [5,∞], U(v2 ∈ [5,∞]) = v2 * 3 (at start) V 2 := V 1 v1v1 value cost value cost v2v2 upper time point v 1 – soil sample in rover’s store v 2 – soil sample communicated

Sample_Soil 1 (Sa1) Dur = 1 Cost: 1 (at end) V 1 += 1 Sample_Soil 2 (Sa2) Dur = 1.25 Cost: 2 (at end) V 1 += 2 Communicate (Com) Dur = 1.5 Cost: 3 (at start) V 2 := V 1 (at start) V 1 ≥ 1 Sa1 t C:1 Sa1 C:1 Sa1 C:1 Sa2 C:2 Sa2 C:2 Sa2 C:2 Com C:4 4 v1v1 value cost value cost Com C:4 satisfies goal h(S) = U(G) - (cost of actions + cost of bounds) v2v2

Results – Modified Rovers  Added numeric variables:  Soil and rock sample amount in rover store  More communicated soil/rock - greater utility

Average improvement: 3.06 Results – Modified Rovers

Anytime A* Search Behavior

Results – Modified Logistics  Added numeric variables:  Number of packages at location  More packages - greater utility

Results – Modified Logistics Average improvement: 2.88

Summary  Over-subscription planning in the presence of  Numeric goals  Durative actions  Propagating cost over numeric values

Future Work  Delayed satisfaction of goals  Goal utility dependency late -10 late -10

Questions.